FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: A Nation Owes A Debt To Its Soldiers

Any nation that hopes to remain free — in fact, any nation that hopes to remain, period — must honor the debt it owes to its soldiers. They are the men and women who go to fight in the place of those who cannot or will not. In a free and self-governing society, this is all the more important as every citizen — whether they agree with the action or not — is responsible for sending that soldier to fight. And if a soldier should die in the process, the nation owes them and their family because they died in place of every other citizen who did not defend their own liberty. So, when a coward such as Bill McLellan writes a piece like this, I — and those who know history — understand that we are in a nation that is soon to collapse into anarchy or tyranny:

Were this still a nation of sanity and honor; a nation that knew right from wrong; this man — and not the bakery or pizza shop owners — would be the one who could no longer find work. This man, this coward, would be the one reduced to begging for the charity of other, better men and women than he. But then, this is no longer such a nation. I say this and know it is true because, as I prepare to go to bed, Bill McLellan still has a job and those bakery and pizza shop owners are still being persecuted for exercising their Natural and CONSTITUTIONAL right of conscience…

7 thoughts on “FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: A Nation Owes A Debt To Its Soldiers”

Are you familiar with Adam Kokesh? He is a self-identified Libertarian and Atheist, I would call him an anarchist.

Adam interviews, which these videos are posted on youtube, various folks and ask them questions about government utilizing the Socratic method in a way that makes folks feel like they’ve contradicted themselves. He does this namely by giving false premises, strawmen, using red herrings, and ignoring evidence.

He claims he advocates for rational thought, but one of the points of evidence he ignores is “Social Contract Theory.” He believes it to be simply made up (he didn’t ‘volunteer’ for it), which the reason he has to hold this view is because he believes “taxation is theft,” no matter the circumstances.

What are you thoughts, and what would be your points in support the Social Contract does exist.

That is a question for a series of posts. You have to go to the top of this blog and start reading the posts under the header “NATURAL LAW.” You must go through them all to get to the Social Contract, which is last. this is because it is built upon the earlier ideas.

However, there is a short answer. If there is no such thing as Social Contract, then ‘might-makes-right’ is the only ‘law’ that is left. Under ‘might-makes-right,’ there can be no objection to ANYTHING! When there is no Natural Law, all things follow. So this guy has no ‘right’ to object to taxes. That requires him to concede that there is a Natural Law, and if that Natural Law exists, then he is conceding to the Social Contract.

BTW: you are hitting at the reason I argue the Libertarian Ideal is as much a failure as the Socialist Ideal: because both try to organize law without the essential element – GOD!

I suppose I’m just floored by the denial of Social Contract, I’ll take a look at your post. It appears to be self-evident to myself, so much so that I believe it’s self-evident to those who deny it. Therefore, innately I question their honesty.

I think proponents of social contract theory suffer from the complexity of the issue. The Libertarian motto, “taxation is theft” “There is no social contract” are simple concepts and are intoxicating due to their appearance of common sense.

It appears most who take this view buy into Rosseuavian thought; however, they miss about half of his assertion on social contract theory. Kokesh advocates this idea of peaceful exchange within society and the absence of violence; however, he very carefully circles around concept of anarchy, yet all of his assertions (‘all roads’) lead to that conclusion. It appears that Rouseauvian principles of the people’s general will lacks the protections from the tyranny of the majority. Something which Madison would address, personally I’ve thought Federalist #51 to be a create arguments against the tyranny of democracy, which, in essence, can be argued to be in itself a state of anarchy. Whenever someone attempts to frame these fringe libertarian assertions using inductive reasoning. Which causes Kokesh to deny the elephant in the room, which is, of course, social contract theory.

The common analogy I’ve heard is giving apples in return for apples; however, what Kokesh is denying is that some of those apples may have been or potentially poisoned by other apple givers.

It’s interesting that you bring up socialist as well as libertarians because I’ve heard both use his philosophy to attack property rights. I’ve heard advocates like Kokesh claim that humans own themselves; however, that’s described in the Second Treatise by Locke.

By framing the philosophical thought in a facile manner, it seems that checkmating himself logically, yet there’s no easy way to convey that message.

I’m sure you have better philosophical insights, as I am a historian, not a philosopher.

Confession time: I am busy with my ‘day job’ at the moment, and your comments deserve much more in-depth responses (one reason I am hoping to add a forum to this blog very soon) I’ll get to you in detail tonight, but — until then — might I suggest that the real elephant in the room is the necessity of acknowledging the Creator. Natural Law only works if there is a Law Giver. Without God, everything the Federalists argued falls apart and leaves us with the ‘might-makes-right’ crowed.

God is essential to the notion of rights. Without Him, then the other side is right and we might as well kill, rape, steal and do whatever we can to get the most for ourselves while we remain. That IS the logical conclusion of any and all attempts to remove God from the equation — and it is why Western society is falling apart (because we have kicked God out of our lives).